WFNY Podcast – 2012-12-03 – Craig and Rick talk Browns and fan use of “we”

WFNY Podcast Logo

Rick and I have been talking “offline” about fan use of the word “we” when describing their favorite team. He uses “we” and I do not or at least try my hardest not to do so. Rick and I were wondering if that’s even a compelling topic, but I found it interesting. Let me know if I’m the only one. Additionally we talked about:

  • How impressive was the Browns win over the Raiders?
  • Phil Dawson’s streak ends at 29
  • Tom Heckert’s drafts panning out
  • Using Montario Hardesty
  • Weeden’s rough start
  • Trent Richardson’s solid finish
  • Josh Cribbs returning the ball from 9 yards deep in the end zone
  • Buster Skrine’s struggles
  • Shurmur’s timeout vs. challenge
  • And an update on the gentlemen’s bet Rick and I have over the Redskins vs. Browns spread. This is another topic where we wondered if anyone was remotely interested or not. Again, you can let us know.

Listen at Stitcher

—————-

Subscribe on iTunes

  • http://waitingfornextyear.com/ Scott @ WFNY

    I’m staunchly anti-“we.” I may slip at times, but I say/write “Cleveland” or “the Browns” the vast majority of the time. Great topic.

  • zwrose

    I’m on Rick’s side for this one. I don’t know that I ever made a concious decision one way or the other, but I definitely use the “we”, and it’s what sounds more natural to me in most situations

  • mgbode

    we don’t pay so that the stars might exist though. it is our money driven by our fandom that allows the team to exist. i don’t think that means we should be allowed into the decision making process, but I definitely think that allows us to 1st person terminology in discussions.

    to ignore the use of pronouns is improper. if you believe that it should be a 3rd person pronoun, then utilize “they.” if you believe that it should be a 1st person pronoun, then utilize “we.”

    We are playing the Kansas City Chiefs this week.
    or
    They are playing the Kansas City Chiefs this week.

    Which one is more correct?

  • zwrose

    RE: the discussion in the later half of the podcast about whether or not a team is able to advance an onside kick (or any kickoff), the answer is no.

    from http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kickoff : “Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.”

    So i think the best strategy there is line up all 11 guys on the 5 and make sure the ball doesn’t get into the end zone (where Oakland could recover and score simultaneously)?

    Other question i had on that scenario – if the kick is recovered and the recovering player is immediately down, how much time runs off the clock? any?

    Apologies if any of this was answered in the last 15 min of the podcast – I had to stop listening at that point for the time being.

  • http://twitter.com/RickWFNY rick grayshock

    Appreciate the link zwrose! I’m not sure on your question. If a kick saild out of the end zone for a touchback, does any time expire?

  • zwrose

    I would guess no there, because no one ever touches the ball. I was thinking along the lines of: say the browns all are down at the 20 to ensure no one touches it so it cant be advanced. if oakland kicks it onside to the 30, the ball comes to a stop, and an oakland raider player falls on it, how does the clock operate?

    the ultimate answer being sought is – can the browns simply stay away from the ball and there is no way oakland can win? or could oakland have recovered an onside kick in fg range without time expring?

  • mgbode

    since the player must have possession, then the ultimate way to ensure victory is to bat the ball down but not recover it in any discernable way to ensure that it cannot be advanced.

  • zwrose

    depends on if they define possession as just touching or fully possessing the ball. drilling down fully into the rulebook (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/9_2012_Free_Kicks.pdf) it actually seems to get less defined? though I might have missed something. its not exactly pleasure reading, ha

  • dan

    I much prefer “they” to “we.” I don’t know about you, but I’m quite certain I’m not out on the field, getting my brain scrambled and my knees destroyed, and don’t think I should be claiming that I am.

    That being said, people should be consistent. If you say “we won,” don’t say “they lost.”

  • mgbode

    definitely should be consistent. and, while my job and body are not on the line on Sundays, I feel real emotional pain dating back to the 1980’s that most of the players, coaches and FO people do not. so, I feel it cuts both ways there.

  • mgbode

    so it depends on the zebra interpretation on the field? and that will set the precedent moving forward. hmmm, I’d rather not find out the answer during a Browns game then.

  • NoVA Buckeye

    I’m usually with “we”, but it can be dangerous when talking to a player on a team as I’ve been offended as a HS player when my classmates who arent on the team referring to the team as “we” and commentators can get fined for it (see: Joey Galloway)
    Also, I’m looking forward to the Redskins game, seeing as how I live 5 minutes from the Redskins practice facilities. I’ll proudly wear my orange and brown in NoVA that weekend.

  • C-Bus Kevin

    Don’t quote me on this, but I’m 95% sure this is how it works. The timing rules on kickoffs are tricky.

    Scenario 1: Kick into the end zone
    -If the receiving team recovers the kick in the end zone, no time goes off the clock until said player leaves the end zone. That’s why, when Cribbs bobbled that kickoff for 5 to 7 seconds before eventually deciding to take a knee, no time came off the clock.
    -If the kicking team recovers the ball, it’s a touchdown, and the play is over with, I believe, one second coming off the clock.

    Scenario 2: Onside kick
    -No matter who recovers it, at least one second must come off the clock. If Oakland recovered the onside kick in the field of play, the game would have ended, no matter what. Only exception…a fair catch.

    What it comes down to is the fact that there is a rule that states that a play in the field of regulation must take at least 1 second. This is meant to prevent the appearance that the clock failed, a team got a free play, team forced to run an extra play, etc. Imagine you are taking a knee, and the defense wants to get the ball back so they call timeout. One second must come off the clock.

    To me, the interesting timing issue is the fact that there appears to be no standard for when the clock should stop at the end of a play (when a thrown ball hits the stands, hits the ground, kicked ball hits the kicking net, etc.).

  • Harv 21

    so then here’s what the Raiders were hoping for with 1 sec left: guy on Browns receiving team grabs possession of the bouncing onside kick, suffers brainlock and, rather than falling down with it, starts to run or holds it up in triumph. Raiders knock it out and run for TD. Ok, so I have no prob with Raiders kicking it and not sure why Craig was so offended that they did.